Apart from this piece by Studio Ahus being a stunning work of art, the accreditation and provenance is of particular interest.

As well as being signed by four makers/designers/artists (Hanne Dreutler, Arthur Zirnsack, Martin Zirnsack & Lennart Nismark), the piece is dated, titled, has a factory mark and a design number.

On top of all that, the sculpture comes with original design drawings and a 'making of' DVD.

Now I know that this information takes time to put together and is completely impractical for studios or factories that produce large volumes of glass, but its nice to see such a level of documentation. When it comes to one-offs or limited additions, I would like to see all glass artists and studios take a similar approach.

.......perhaps I should add that it would be helpful if signatures were legible?

Sometimes you need to have an idea of possible names to interpret a signature.

Of course we also have to respect the language of the persons involved or would you expect everything in Arabic script?

With the growth of Indian and Chinese production and later African, we can expect to be finding even more challenges in the future.

Ultimately someone has to pay for the signatures/markings. For the most part, not the collectors who want to buy below production cost on the second market. The direct customers pay, but do they care if it is marked or not. Perhaps the only justified signatures for collectors are those where the principle market is collectors and not those buying for decoration and use. Perhaps glassmakers could get more benefit if they only signed their work after it appears on the secondary market. They could then levy a charge and benefit from the demand for their products. Of course there would be some willing to sign anything. As mentioned earlier, glassmakers do sign their unsigned work after is has come onto the second market - I have yet to meet a collector who actually paid the glassmaker for doing so! A double standard if anything, as the added signature adds to the value of the piece.

The preference of collectors to wait for the secondary market is perhaps good justification for the makers NOT to mark their glass :roll:

It does seem that the strongest feelings for signatures are coming from those with an interest in trading within the secondary market. But surely full marking would de-skill those traders.

This topic has resulted in all sorts of thoughts spinning through my head.

Another one.

There are some collectors who say that some glass should not be collected or is not worth collecting. This has surfaced many times on these boards and most often with a racist undertone - which of course is not allowed so you will not find many such comments still here.

Probably the largest area of glass collecting currently is for Zwarovski - about the most prolific of all glass direct to collectors with Zwarovski shops and concessions at airports worldwide. They have been in business since 1895 yet much of their output is unsigned.

May I diverge off into the concept of collecting? People may not realise (or not have realised in the past) that they are collecting glass. Pressed glass, made for domestic use, cheaply and competitively priced, has been bought for function and retained through either accident or intent. And now it is collected, at prices way, way higher than the original makers could have even dreamed of.

It was this thought that was in my head when I posed the somewhat esoteric questions earlier in this thread: "Why is glass made? and "Who for?"

Probably the largest area of glass collecting currently is for Zwarovski - about the most prolific of all glass direct to collectors with Zwarovski shops and concessions at airports worldwide. They have been in business since 1895 yet much of their output is unsigned.

There is no accounting for taste :roll: .

Having said that, I understand that Swarovski are attempting to move into the so-called 'designer' sector. Over the last 18 months many big-name designers have been commissioned to produce pieces for the firm. I doubt if these will go unsigned. Although I doubt if the actually makers will be acknowledged.

I think that comments about whether any particular type of glass should be collectable has more to do with personal taste and how an individual rates the cultural importance of any particular type of glass.

As tastes vary, both with individuals and society, I would say that it is very difficult to foresee what will become collectable in the future. Who would have thought that vintage Pyrex would acquire dedicated collectors?

I don't think I am in any position to dictate who should sign what, or how, especially with so many things to consider (cost, practicality etc). However I don't think many people would disagree that the work of contemporary studio artists is likely to remain collectable in the distant future. Therefore signatures will be extremely useful: not only for collectors, but also for historians and archivists.

When it comes to factory glass I couldn't say one way or another whether it is going to have any value in the future; in which case a signature may not be that much of a priority. This would include commercial functional glass or any of the poor quality glass coming out of countries such as China, Romania, and India etc.

There are, as always, grey-areas. There are manufacturers who produce 'art glass' on a large scale. Here you find items of glass that have clearly been conceptualised by talented designers, who are often influenced by the output of renowned studio artists (much like Whitefriars in 60s & 70s).

Just because the glass is mass-produced, does that make it any less valuable to a future collector? Does that mean that such glass should be signed, just in case it becomes valuable?

Is it practical or desirable for large-scale makers to have their work signed?

If you have a situation, where a dozen or more glassmakers make a piece of glass to the same design, is there any value in knowing who was responsible for an individual piece? Is it more important to know the identity of the designer?

Indeed Glen, the vast majority of glass production is for technical or practical uses and its collection is very much a niche subject. Most collectors of secondary market are buying glass made for collectors or made as eith art or for decorative purposes.

Beyond Swarovski there are few company makers almost exclusively making for collectors markets. Paperweight companies possibly being the main exception but even they are producing significantly for the gift trade. Franklin Mint are another possible with exclusive designs for collectors - some of which is by identifiable makers. Few of our visitors collect in this area of the market though. Which is perhaps an indication of the level of intrest created by unsigned glass.

I would say that Fenton is primarily such a producer (for the collector market). There is quite an overlap in the collector/gift market for both Swarovski and Fenton. I've bought Swarovski as a gift (not to collect) and Fenton as a collectible (not for a gift).

Just because the glass is mass-produced, does that make it any less valuable to a future collector? Does that mean that such glass should be signed, just in case it becomes valuable?

Is it practical or desirable for large-scale makers to have their work signed?

The example of Carnival Glass answers the first question - mass produced, yet in some instances, very valuable (now) indeed. The top dollar items are generally not trade marked in any way, but are usually (not always) identifiable.